United States v. Brandon Alexander, 954 F.3d 910

On April 24, 2017, MPD Detective Pete Shockley stopped Brandon Alexander for driving on a suspended license; Shockley saw a bank deposit bag with cash and a locked safe in the SUV. Alexander refused a search; Shockley arrested him, conducted a cab-to-trunk roadside search, found meth residue, paraphernalia, and $11,560 cash, and later discovered 35 grams of meth in Alexander’s waistband. The SUV was towed.
Shockley obtained a warrant for the locked safe the next day; the safe yielded a loaded pistol and Alexander’s wallet.
On May 3, 2017, after a traffic stop and arrest on a warrant for the firearm and the suspended-license offense, Alexander responded “I don’t care” when asked about searching a Lincoln; Shockley searched the towed Lincoln and found 113 grams of meth in a hollowed WD-40 can.
A federal jury convicted Alexander on drug and firearms counts; he was sentenced to 216 months after being classified a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b).
The district court denied suppression motions, treating both vehicle searches as valid inventory searches. On appeal the Government conceded, under United States v. Havis, that the career-offender enhancement was improper; the Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of suppression for other reasons, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing without the career-offender enhancement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of evidence from April 24 vehicle search	Inventory search invalid due to lack of standardized scope; suppress evidence	Inventory search valid under MPD practice; alternatively, inevitable discovery or search-incident/automobile exception would justify evidence	Inventory exception rejected (no established routine); evidence nonetheless admissible under inevitable-discovery and as search incident/automobile exception — suppression denied
Warrant for locked safe (probable cause)	Warrant unsupported by probable cause	Affidavit linking cash, drugs, scales, and safe provided nexus	Warrant supported by probable cause; items from safe admissible
Admissibility of evidence from May 3 vehicle search	No voluntary consent; “I don’t care” not consent	Alexander’s statement was consent; search valid (and court previously treated as inventory)	Credibility finding for consent not clearly erroneous; search admissible; suppression denied
Career-offender classification under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b)	Prior Tennessee delivery conviction should not qualify as controlled-substance predicate	Government concedes Havis controls and the predicate cannot be counted	Sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing without the § 4B1.2(b) enhancement

United States v. Havis, 927 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2019) (attempt crimes do not qualify as controlled-substance offenses under § 4B1.2(b))
Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (1990) (inventory searches require standardized procedures to limit officer discretion)
Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987) (inventory searches are a recognized exception to the warrant requirement)
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) (inevitable-discovery doctrine permits admission of evidence that would have been discovered lawfully)
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (vehicle search incident to arrest allowed when evidence relevant to the arrest crime may be found in the vehicle)
California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985) (automobile exception permits warrantless vehicle searches when probable cause exists)
United States v. Hockenberry, 730 F.3d 645 (6th Cir. 2013) (inventory searches must follow standardized criteria or an established routine)
United States v. Tackett, 486 F.3d 230 (6th Cir. 2007) (inventory policies need not be written but must exist and constrain discretion)
United States v. McPhearson, 469 F.3d 518 (6th Cir. 2006) (probable cause for warrants requires a fair probability and a nexus to the place to be searched)